Using Olive oil instead of Oxygen

[agenthucky]

Regardless of what the original studies were done for, this is what most people here are using it for. If you want results for zero aeration + OO vs oxygen, then just read the original study. Your answer is already in there. It works, but it's a bit slower and increases esters. Instead of repeating the original experiment, why not adapt this to your method and see if it helps or even makes a difference.

The whole first part of this discussion was if it made any difference at a homebrew level. Adding in fractions of a drop is a different ratio than was used in the experiment. The problem with adapting to your method is that everyone brews differently. If person X says they did step Y and it improved their beer it is not repeatable by anyone else reading this.

I have adopted this, and provided my results. I did both, and it helped, but the beer never lasted that long so results were speculative. it's not definitive because it wasn't controlled.

Though you have a good point about ergosterol

 

[seabass07]

I understand how the thread started out, but most of us introduce o2 into our beer accidentally. Most of us, it seems, dont use pure o2 or an aeration stone. So consider this an alternate discussion about using oo to suppliment shaking.

 

[agenthucky]

I understand how the thread started out, but most of us introduce o2 into our beer accidentally. Most of us, it seems, dont use pure o2 or an aeration stone. So consider this an alternate discussion about using oo to suppliment shaking.

Agreed, most homebrewers don't need the shelf life new belgium was trying to achieve either. Notice the topic of this thread "Using Olive Oil Instead of Oxygen". It's what attracts people to this thread.

I would just like to see this become a viable alternative to aerating in the brewing world. Then you'll see experiments to compare shaking, stones, OO much like we already have now. Until it is excepted, and written about in books it will just be a side discussion.

I hate to argue about this as it's mostly irrelevant but I am also perturbed by threads that have 50+ pages. When you get to that point questions are asked over and over again by people not reading through the bulk of the non important posts (see the pikachu comment). If there is an end goal, it won't be reached by watering down the thread.

 

[Wynne-R]

Yeah I thought that too, SeaBass07, that we should be comparing some aeration to some aeration with oil. Problem is, the effect is too subtle to show on a single trial. You might prevent a stuck fermentation or have better stability, but it’s going to be hard to prove.

I was going to repeat that experiment with some double blind tasting with BJCP judges. Now I think it would be inconclusive. As Denny says, ‘Why bother?’

Which reminds me, if Denny thought I was taking a shot at him, I’m sorry. I’m pretty sure he understood what I was saying.

We know oxygen is bad for beer. We know olive oil can substitute for oxygen. I don’t know of any reason to think that it wouldn’t work for a sub-optimally aerated batch. Just the effect would be less. And harder to prove.

The part I don’t understand now is why people don’t want to accept the conclusions of the original experiment.

 

[Calder]

OK,, I've read the thread, and it would seem there are probably some benefits to using OO, with no noted downside.

Based on what I have read, I plan to add a drop (or less) of OO to my fermenter from now on. I'll not make any changes to what I do (splashing and lots of shaking), and see what happens.

I don't expect to see any improvement, but I think I will continue to use it because it may help, provided I don't find anything detrimental that I can contribute to it.

Anyone see any problem with this.

 

[agenthucky]

The part I don’t understand now is why people don’t want to accept the conclusions of the original experiment.

DITTO!

In addition to that the biggest reason to not use OO would be the effect on head retention. Multiple people have shown this isn't the case though, scientific experiment or not, people have used OO with no ill effects to the head retention. I just think it's the case of people stuck in their ways and believing the old thoughts of all oil is bad for head retention. Being in the tech industry, adapting to new technology and information is crucial to furthering yourself and your work. I'm not saying everyone has to use it to make great beer, but it shouldn't be ignored if it has the potential to make better beer.

 

[Wynne-R]

Calder I think you would do better to add 2-3 drops to the starter. In the original experiment they were adding olive oil to the yeast starter 5 hours before pitching. Good for you for having an open mind and actually trying it.

I don’t think it’s just about the head. But on that subject, there’s way more oil in hops than two drops. Also 2 drops in five gallons is like 5 ppb.

I can see why a longer fermentation would be unacceptable to commercial brewers. To us it’s nothing. Slight increase in esters? Hey, if it’s not bananas, sign me up.

 

[Calder]

Calder I think you would do better to add 2-3 drops to the starter. In the original experiment they were adding olive oil to the yeast starter 5 hours before pitching. Good for you for having an open mind and actually trying it.

I don’t think it’s just about the head. But on that subject, there’s way more oil in hops than two drops. Also 2 drops in five gallons is like 5 ppb.

I can see why a longer fermentation would be unacceptable to commercial brewers. To us it’s nothing. Slight increase in esters? Hey, if it’s not bananas, sign me up.

Without going back to find my references, I think I saw that the original use was roughly 1/10th a drop in 5 gallons. My thought was to just dip the end of a sanitized thermometer (or probe of some type) in the oil and then in the cooled wort.

Why the fermenter and not starter? I often just wash yeast and pitch yeast without a starter. Probably use a starter about 25% of the time, the other times are freshly washed yeast. Adding to fermenter makes it consistent and part of my process.

 

[seabass07]

Agreed, most homebrewers don't need the shelf life new belgium was trying to achieve either. Notice the topic of this thread "Using Olive Oil Instead of Oxygen". It's what attracts people to this thread.

I would just like to see this become a viable alternative to aerating in the brewing world. Then you'll see experiments to compare shaking, stones, OO much like we already have now. Until it is excepted, and written about in books it will just be a side discussion.

I hate to argue about this as it's mostly irrelevant but I am also perturbed by threads that have 50+ pages. When you get to that point questions are asked over and over again by people not reading through the bulk of the non important posts (see the pikachu comment). If there is an end goal, it won't be reached by watering down the thread.

That pikachu comment had more relevance than most of this thread.

 

[broadbill]

The part I don’t understand now is why people don’t want to accept the conclusions of the original experiment.

I don't anybody out-rightly rejects the conclusions, it think they are questioning the jump in logic between what how the experiments were done in the thesis and what homebrewers are doing now.

Hull's thesis work was adding OO to stored yeast, but homebrewers have extrapolated this work to suggest that adding OO to wort directly is going to have some effect. As Denny has pointed out (and his friend's tasting experiment shows), adding OO in this fashion does not have any significant effect.

We know olive oil can substitute for oxygen.

Well, what Hull thesis shows is that OO-treated yeast appears to ferment the New Belgium wort similarly to oxygen-treated wort (with small differences in taste and fermentation kinetics). What is NOT known is how a batch of wort that received no treatment whatsoever would ferment. It is entirely possible even with no treatment it would ferment similar to the OO or oxygen-treated worts, meaning that there is sufficient oxygen in the wort for the yeast to do their thing.

This is a critical point: OO appears to be able to substitute for oxygen because that OO-wort fermented similarly to oxygen-treated wort. However, if the oxygen treated ferments similarly to no-oxygen wort, then OO does not have an effect after all (nor does oxygen, in this system anyway).

 

[Denny]

I don't anybody out-rightly rejects the conclusions, it think they are questioning the jump in logic between what how the experiments were done in the thesis and what homebrewers are doing now.

Hull's thesis work was adding OO to stored yeast, but homebrewers have extrapolated this work to suggest that adding OO to wort directly is going to have some effect. As Denny has pointed out (and his friend's tasting experiment shows), adding OO in this fashion does not have any significant effect.

 

[Wynne-R]

Wasn’t Vance’s experiment done with the toothpick method? A microscopic amount of oil in 5 gallons?

From “someone at New Belgium.” in the original post

For the volume of wort we normally ferment, we would pitch about 4500L of yeast, and to that we would add around 300mL of olive oil. To translate that into a 5 gallon size, you would need to measure about 0.0000833mL of olive oil.

OK they were using 1mg/25 billion cells. Mr Malty says 5 gallons of 1.057 wort should be pitched with 198 billion cells.So that’s 7.92 mg. Oleic acid is .895 g/mL so that’s .0088 mL, about a fifth of a drop.

Somewhere in the thread, somebody calculated .083 mL. I checked it and it seemed right at the time. I don’t remember how it was figured.

Looking at it another way, 2100hL is about 11000 five gal batches. 300ml/11000 is .027 mL, half a drop. Still in the ballpark. About a hundred times closer than “someone at New Belgium.”

From the original thesis:

as the amount of olive oil was increased with each trial, the fermentation performance improved. It is possible that the rate of fermentation and the ratio of esters to higher alcohols could be improved if the amount of olive oil addition were increased beyond the rate of 1 mg / 25 billion cells. For this brand, the increase in total esters was perceived as preferable by the flavor panel.

So, more is better, at least up to a point. And, if you read the thesis you’ll find that they added it to the yeast five hours before the pitch.

 

[Haputanlas]

Tried the olive oil on an English Mild I just brewed. I won't get much evidence out of this since I didn't split the batches. Once I've completed my 10 gallon brew setup, I will split up that first batch into two.

Either way, I'll post the results of the brew as soon as it's finished.

 

[Haputanlas]

As I mentioned, my experiment isn't very scientific. However, I wanted to report that my English Mild turned out fantastic. Used only Olive Oil with very minimal amount of splashing / aeration while transferring from kettle to fermenter.

 

[Hermit]

As I mentioned, my experiment isn't very scientific. However, I wanted to report that my English Mild turned out fantastic. Used only Olive Oil with very minimal amount of splashing / aeration while transferring from kettle to fermenter.

Something like a mild doesn't need much oxygenation if you use a healthy starter. Thanks for the info and let us know if you do other beers like this.

 

[Haputanlas]

Something like a mild doesn't need much oxygenation if you use a healthy starter. Thanks for the info and let us know if you do other beers like this.

Agreed. Part of the point for me using this method on the mild was the fact that it should be low risk.

 

[luke2080]

Just re-brewed an Amber that I've done a few times, same process, hit my target OG. Never able to get it down the last few points though. Used a tiny drop into my already complete starter (was fresh yeast, made a starter, sat for 5 days before I cooled it to knock down the yeast), about 5 hours before it was needed for pitching. If I can finally get this down an extra couple of points for the FG, I'll have a bit more evidence whether or not this was impactful. and can compare the taste to the last batch. Should know something in ~6 weeks.

 

[Denny]

Just re-brewed an Amber that I've done a few times, same process, hit my target OG. Never able to get it down the last few points though. Used a tiny drop into my already complete starter (was fresh yeast, made a starter, sat for 5 days before I cooled it to knock down the yeast), about 5 hours before it was needed for pitching. If I can finally get this down an extra couple of points for the FG, I'll have a bit more evidence whether or not this was impactful. and can compare the taste to the last batch. Should know something in ~6 weeks.

But without splitting the batch for a control, how will you know that anything is due to the OO?

 

[luke2080]

But without splitting the batch for a control, how will you know that anything is due to the OO?

I was running off the fact that I've brewed this enough without other variables changing. Easier to make the one starter than 2.

But I've had to add a heating element to the ferm chamber thanks to winter, and am using it for a slightly different fermentation temp schedule, so I've messed up my poor pretend control of previous batches.

Sill, I'll post the results as a comparison when I have it. If the OO shows decent results, maybe I'll take the next step and do an actual controlled experiment or two.

 

[Denny]

It seems to me that people keep proving over and over that OO doesn't hurt anything. I'm on board with that. What I'm looking for is evidence that it actually helps.

 

[Haputanlas]

It seems to me that people keep proving over and over that OO doesn't hurt anything. I'm on board with that. What I'm looking for is evidence that it actually helps.

Don't think you'll get it. There are obviously a few different goals for each of the users. Yours is to see if it will help your brew process, but mine was to make my brew day more convenient. Right now, I'm starting to brew 10 gallon batches without a good aeration system. I can't imagine trying to shake a sanke keg full of 10+ gallons of wort to get a 1.070+ beer enough oxygen.

Until I get an O2 system in place, this seems like a temporary solution to hold me off.

 

[aiptasia]

My issue with it is the flavor of the OO. I recently tried a west coast ale (brewery to remain nameless) that was fed on EVOO and had another one at a bottle share yesterday that I didn't know was treated with OO.

The problem for me is, the olive taste is present in the final beer. Since I cook with EVOO and have several different varieties in my kitchen, I can generally pick it out and differentiate between different types of cooking oils by taste when i'm out at restaurants.

The taste is just foreign to me in beer and I don't like it. It doesn't belong in the flavor profile of most beer styles (vegetable beer the only exception) and I find it disgusting when mixing with hops flavors in a beer like an IPA.

I'm now marking any EVOO beers I come across in untapp'd to avoid buying them in the future.

 

[seabass07]

If you can taste the actual OO, then way too much was used.

 

[broadbill]

Don't think you'll get it. There are obviously a few different goals for each of the users. Yours is to see if it will help your brew process, but mine was to make my brew day more convenient. Right now, I'm starting to brew 10 gallon batches without a good aeration system. I can't imagine trying to shake a sanke keg full of 10+ gallons of wort to get a 1.070+ beer enough oxygen.

Until I get an O2 system in place, this seems like a temporary solution to hold me off.

Do you know for a fact that added oxygenation/aeration is needed in the first place? You might be surprised by an experiment where you brew 10 gallons, and shake one 5 gallon sample and not shake the other.

You might not additional oxygenation/aeration for a variety of reasons. Your system and/or process might introduce enough in and by itself (something that is overlooked by alot of homebrewers). You might do a good job of yeast propagation, which minimizes the amount of aerobic respiration/reproduction that needs to happen in the wort. Anecdotal

This gets back to my main "beef" with the grady hull thesis: There was few differences between traditionally oxygenated and OO treated worts, but what wasn't shown is if either of these were any different than if they had not treating the wort at all. The conclusion in the thesis on the effect of OO hinges on the assumption that traditional oxygenation has an effect beyond not treating the wort at all, which the study did not demonstrate.

I know what the conventional wisdom dictates regarding dissolved oxygen in brewing, I understand the biochemical basis for it....but I sometimes question the applicability of this knowledge to the homebrew setting.Again, much depends on the brewers process and the recipe....but sweeping generalizations (adding oxygen is necessary for all worts) usually aren't correct either.

 

[Denny]

Don't think you'll get it. There are obviously a few different goals for each of the users. Yours is to see if it will help your brew process, but mine was to make my brew day more convenient. Right now, I'm starting to brew 10 gallon batches without a good aeration system. I can't imagine trying to shake a sanke keg full of 10+ gallons of wort to get a 1.070+ beer enough oxygen.

Until I get an O2 system in place, this seems like a temporary solution to hold me off.

You need one of these....

 

[Haputanlas]

If you can taste the actual OO, then way too much was used.

Agreed.

Do you know for a fact that added oxygenation/aeration is needed in the first place? You might be surprised by an experiment where you brew 10 gallons, and shake one 5 gallon sample and not shake the other.

I believe it. I've brewed batches before where I know I underaerated and they still came out quite good. Batches where I didn't have fermentation temp control, but aerated thoroughly, suffered far worse than those without aeration.

You need one of these....

Very good idea. As long as this will fit down a Sanke keg opening, that might be just what I need.

 

[Denny]

It fits in a carboy, so there's a pretty good chance it would fit in a Sanke.

 

[jmh286]

Interesting....don't think I'll try it though

 

[Haputanlas]

Just used Olive Oil again in a batch today.

Once I get that drill attachment Denny recommended, I'll try a three way split on a batch (Aerate / OO / Nothing)

 

[Accidic]

Not the most beastly thread I've ever trudged through but one of the more interesting and equally frustrating. I read through the thread, the Grady Hull paper, as well as the experiment by Vance and as with everyone I got a very different take on the assertions.

The Grady Hull (referred to as Hull from here-on out) was fascinating but incredibly onesided in what it was testing for. It did however raise the question of whether the process could be adopted in other areas which many seemed to jump to moreso and missed the point of the original paper.

On the two sides of the fence seem to be (at least most recently) Wrynne and Denny so let me first start with Wrynne's (and if I screw this up I humbly apologize but that's a lotta data to absorb in quick fashion ).

Wrynne:
If I remember correctly Wrynne implied that there wasn't any harm that could come from adding the Olive Oil of which I'd disagree and point to numerous points that pointed out a key example of one of the potential problems: Sterility/Sanitation. More than a few people reported contaminated batches when using OO. Does that mean it's clearly from the OO? No, but it doesn't mean that it isn't either.

My biggest question on the pro-side of the spectrum is the assertion over whether or not the oil can be heated. I do not recall seeing anyone naysay the heating of the oil in any of the groups (if I missed it please point it out if you would be so kind) and I only saw it posted as a bad thing here. Yes, excessive heat in olive oil can damage the Oleic that founded the Hull hypothesis in the first place but we're talking about heat nearing the smoke point which in the case of EVOO is still at least 300 degrees (well above that of boiling) and in somewhat more processed OO it's around 420 degrees. Neither of these should be even remotely approached if boiled in the water used be it the batch's wort or wort for a starter.


Denny:
I do not enjoy the results from using oxygen as opposed to agitation. As such I do not have plans on buying another oxygenation system (although I do kind of like the airpump/filter method's levels). Normally though I just shake the crap out of things and gain plenty of oxygen from the dump. That said, I don't like the drill stir as I've personally had really bad luck with contamination using them and while that may be purely my fault, it still doesn't give me any desire to use them. This could be the case with using Oil as well but if heated I don't see why it would be as likely. That said, I did not care for either of the two batches I simply forgot to oxygenate more than what they got during the siphoning process (both batches were due to being out of oxygen and I just pitched and locked em up out of frustration) but they were most definitely both beer and neither were stuck.

While I don't disagree with your assertions about people's results not being scientifically viable, I would point out that they seem to dismiss the possiblity of people gaining benefits they believe in which also may be mental aspects but who the hell cares as long as they're enjoying it. Coincidently, I let my daughter push my batches over to their resting spot on a dolly on the faint idea that that little bit of extra agitation puts them over the edge. It's stupid but it makes me feel better. Vance's experiment (this screws with my head every time I read it as I share the name), while mostly circumstantial and somewhat incomplete without the non-O2/OO batch did seem to consistently imply that you would get a slightly different flavor profile (albeit minor) which might be preferable to some. Outside of a few people that seem to share it as gospel though I really don't see anything being hurt here either way so long as you're participating in this great hobby. Don't get me wrong, I think I got your point but I didn't really take it that way until I'd read it a few times.


Noone in particular:
Further, OO was chosen because of the particular type of monounsaturated fat it contains (Oleic) so I don't really see why the somewhat more processed version should be bad for this. This should solve the problem of the person concerned about taste added by the Oil itself but if I remember correctly they also suggested that similar results might be achieved with alternative high monounsaturated fats such as Canola oil (high Oleic as well as moderate linoleic acid) which is slightly less ideal than Olive but still pretty high up on that chain. A possibly better alternative would be the high Oleic varieties of Sunflower oil (my wife uses this for her salads) which is much higher in Oleic acid than Olive Oil by about 15-20% if memory serves but more importantly it doesn't have that vegetable-ish taste. It does have a very low smoke point which is around 225 I think but that's still reasonably above boiling. I'm personally considering going this route with my next batch to see if I like the results but I think I'll wait til late in the boil to add it (at least unless someone can point to a place that says heating below the smoke point destroys the substance that it is suggested to possibly aid with anyway).

If nothing else, I used to enjoy several of the New Belgium offerings around the timeframe of this guys thesis. I don't know or remember anyone saying they definitively used it around that timeframe or not but I wonder if it's the little bit of oomph that's clearly missing from their current offerings. Poor case scenario is I waste a batch or two of potentially good beer to make subpar beer. Worst case scenario is it's undrinkable which doesn't seem too terribly likely judging from the great number of responses. In any event, where's the harm in developing another superstition or two?